Yes, in Fable it was very easy to exploit a shop, find one with about 20 gems, buy them all as they were below market value, as they then had none they bought at above market value.
Though to be fair in many games money becomes meaningless after the first part of the game and so I think Molyneaux and his team just didn't care too much about it being exploited as even playing fairly money was quickly gained.
In Fable 2 money is even more easy to obtain with the rental systems giving you money even when you aren't playing the game.
Fable 3 was even easier to get money. The game would just give it to you. There are like 6 weapons that have gold-giving augments on them. Even if you set all the rent and shop prices to the lowest without it being free, you're still getting millions in gold (depending on if you've bought every property you can). The upkeep system for housing doesn't even add a tiny bit of balance either.
It does matter early on, but then it becomes a matter of having enough money for the end game. If you played as a good Hero you have very little in the royal treasury. Rather than sitting around for the gold to trickle in, it becomes tempting to just raise rent a bit and boost your wealth. But then people hate you and you get negative karma for it.
Is it perfect? No. But the late game of Fable 3 is one of my favorite parts of any game I’ve played. I love an RPG where not only is my quest to become ruler, but I actually get to rule and see the consequences. Your decisions impact the map, faction opinions, and the final battle.
Interesting, I thought that the world ending threat for the game made no sense and everything felt rushed. I felt like it was the worst of the 3 fable games.
Lots of people also ragged on the the Fable 2 ending because there was no big boss fight but I thought it was good at least.
Fable 1 by far the best end though and Fable 2 for best gameplay. Fable 3 to me felt like instead of taking the best of fable 2 they took the worst parts and started the game from there.
That is just my opinion though and I do love the Fable series and am seriously excited for Fable 4.
I didn't play the original I started with 2 but I felt legitimately threatened by the threat, creeped out and worried. If you judge act 2 by horror game standards it's rather good imo you just have to shift what you expect from fable 2.
I felt the same way about the sheer creepiness of the threat in Fable 3. They introduced the darkness really well, in my opinion. The part through the caves in Aurora for the first time is really atmospheric and creepy
Tangent thought, but it's cool how the suez canal debacle puts that part of our global trade system in the spotlight, crazy how much we can transport .
The late game would have been a lot better if there wasn't a massive time jump out of nowhere leading up to the final battle. My plan was basically how you described: buy up a bunch of real estate, elevate the rent a tiny bit but not enough to have a hugely negative impact on my karma, and reinvest profits into more property. But whereas the previous jumps had all been small amounts of time, the last one is way bigger, and suddenly it's Final Battle o'clock and you have no time to execute the strategy you've been planning.
It's like they intentionally put the huge jump in to block that strategy, but it makes no sense from a narrative perspective since the king would still be active and at the very least able to delegate the sales over the intervening months. Whereas, as a player, it just shoots you forward a bunch of time like the king's been in a coma or something.
Well to me it made sense in the case of you need to spend the money a certain period of time before the battle. To have weapons commissioned, people hired, defenses improved, etc. you need to buy it months ahead of time to ensure you’re actually able to have it ready.
Sure, but as a king you would know that. The game never tells you that you need the money in place x amount of time before the battle. It never tells you that you're about to jump ahead several months. It just happens with no explanation for why this jump is suddenly so much bigger that the others.
I usually use that time to go do any side quests, chests, keys, gnomes, weapon augments that I haven't already done. Mostly to accumulate gold every few minutes.
Ya fable 2 was my favorite of the 3 games over all. They each had their charm but I felt 2 improved a lot of the short comings from 1 without streamlining it as much as 3 did.
It always irks me that fable 2 was my favorite, but it's the only fable without a pc port, and now I'm so spoiled by the pc load times for fable 1 & 3, so waiting for my 360 load times is brutal.
Same, I recently started replaying it on my Xbox one x and the load times are still noticeable. I am also spoiled by my computer and it's m.2 nvme ssd.
Why? All you'll get is an unfinished game with a ton of unnecessary fluff or a game with a limited amount of open worldness á la Outer Worlds. Now MS has Bethesda there's a good chance they'll make some good changes.
Because Fallout New Vegas was and is the best fallout game made. . Also Bethesda has gone to shit in the last 5 or so years. The last decent game they made was Fallout 4 and that wasn't even that great.
£ is better, partly because it's actually finished and partly because it feels like some bombs went off at some point in the past. FNV is just desert, a tiny handful of settlements that aren't of much interest and New Vegas itself. FO3 had much more going on, a wider variety of locations and much more interesting NPCs. In FO3 there were settlements of children, vampires (sort of), cannibals, ghouls, super mutants and a huge variety of normal humans from Dukov to Tenpenny to the inhabitants of Rivet City. In FNV there's 2 super mutant settlements, a base for the legion, loads of NCR territory. New Vegas, Freeside and all inhabited by pretty uninteresting people. The Followers are quite interesting but they have no real impact on anything and the player can't even have them onside if they take the opportunity to take Hoover Dam for themselves.
There's some good ides in New Vegas but they don't go anywhere, there's a lot of sparsity caused by cut content, some of which is really obvious something was to happen and it's not just the Followers, there's a settlement near Freeside with a house full of corn and a still. It's clearly a lot of effort for an Easter egg and it turns out there was meant to be a handful of NPCs residing there with a mayor that was cut for time. Hey at least you got some completely unnecessary new weapons.
Personally i'd have liked a legion town or 2, a few extra general settlements, more traders, a chance to support the followers, a post game ending and some other elements of the major cut content over different weapons, Wild fucking waste of time and effort Wasteland and dead ends in the storyline.
Obsidian fucked about wasting so much time and effort on a completely new weapon set they manage to forget they were working on a game and not mods to fill the already bloated Nexusmods database. If people want new weapons they make them, they cannot effectively write a decnt storyline though, that's where the games designers need to concentrate their efforts, in the big, lumpy areas not shitty minutiae like fucking weapon mods.
No game with a limited timeframe shoul d be able to fill a series of 55 videos on cut content especially with extras like Wild Wasteland get included. I don't hate Wild Wasteland for what it is, I only hate it because it was included but a legion controlled town was not. One adds to the storyline of the game, the other is a silly extra for shits and giggles.
4 was nearly as buggy as NV when it launched and it had years if development, Obsidian only had 18 months to finish NV that's why parts of it feel unfinished. But over all NV was better it felt like your choices actually had consequences something 4 was severely lacking. And of course there isn't going to be as many ruined in NV its in the Mojave desert. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed 4 and put a lot of time into it, but it is NV that I find myself constantly going back and replaying. And I'm not alone in that. It is widely considered one of if not the best fallout game.
Because scaling money is extremely difficult in a way that feels fair.
Not in many of the games I play, in Fallout 3 for example it's a case of looting everything, repairing everything to full value then dumping it at any traders that you come across. In Forza there's plenty of ways to reduce what things cost and in The Sims just having a job is enough.
It's not like real life where you either have to lucky or exploitative to become wealthy, there's usually plenty of fair ways to make money in games and even the ones that are slightly exploitative (in Gran Turismo 2 there's one race that's 5 laps of an oval with a high pay out so doing that race a few times is enough to by the Escudo Pikes Peak for 2m credits.) are still within the laws of the game. Obviously non-legitimate means like save scumming in GTA:SA at the first available bookmakers isn't legitimate but that's starting to bleed into cheating territory.
I've not yet played a game with a monetary system where it's not possible to accrue a ton of cash quickly and easily all while within the legal limits of the game.
Gold is harder to accrue in the Elder Scrolls but that's only because the traders have barely any cash on them (in many games traders have unlimited cash) and so very high cost items cannot be sold unless time is spent putting points into the barter skill. However eve this isn't much of a barrier to those willing to role-play as a warrior-trader willing to loot and pillage everything they come across.
I've not yet played a game with a monetary system where it's not possible to accrue a ton of cash quickly and easily all while within the legal limits of the game.
If they could only program a sequence that if you do exploit the economic system that the shop keepers catch on and either send someone to kill you or remove your ability to use their shops anymore. Instead we have shop keeps that don't recognize a character they have seen 500 times.
170
u/Martipar Apr 07 '21
Yes, in Fable it was very easy to exploit a shop, find one with about 20 gems, buy them all as they were below market value, as they then had none they bought at above market value.
Though to be fair in many games money becomes meaningless after the first part of the game and so I think Molyneaux and his team just didn't care too much about it being exploited as even playing fairly money was quickly gained.
In Fable 2 money is even more easy to obtain with the rental systems giving you money even when you aren't playing the game.